Forum

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

I agree in theory, but to play Devil's advocate:

Firstly, thanks Ryan for having a look at this! I have no idea where this is going to go but let's see.
I'd like to turn these points into threads of their own but for the moment, I'll just give an abbreviated response.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Will this apply just to the world, or to the PCs too? Because psychological studies point out that people playing games generally get frustrated if the failure ratio is greater than 30% for any given attempt. I think whatever you do in this regard, you need to make sure you don't make spells randomly fail or anything like that.

At the moment (in 3.x/4E), spells fail if the target makes their save/you can't beat their defences. I'm not too sure whether you mean: don't give the casting of magic a chance to fail? I was contemplating a skill check of sorts (with a variable DC determined by the spell) for certain spells to be cast by a wizard (but certainly not all spells).

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Give magic a cost. Tempt with just a bit of power if you commit evil acts. Definitely have some method of creating your own spells -- not just choosing from a 'powers list' -- so that the players can be caught off guard by their foe's magic, but have the chance to gain it for themselves.

I have a very rough system of magic thought out which I'll detail in a further thread.

Effectively, it splits casters into three primary groups (with the possiblity for secondary groups):
- Wizards (For the imaginative-style player who wants flexibility and utility and a reduced focus on resource management)
- Sorcerers (For the power-player who enjoys the careful management of mana and the optimizing of the power gained from it)
- Warlocks (For the player who wants a darker different sort of magic, like a summoner but completely different in terms of mechanics - cost is the word here)

- It does away with the Vancian system: If you know how to perform a spell, you can cast it. There are restrictions to casting certain spells and to casting in general but most spells (particularly utility style) can simply be cast.

- It does away with spell levels: If you are willing to pay the cost, or are willing to risk casting a spell, you can do it - success is variable and can depend on a couple of factors.

Anyway, I'll detail it on another thread for discussion.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Brother, I feel the same way, but my players sure as hell like magic items. They were like kids on a Toys R Us shopping spree when the Magic Item Compendium came out. For some gamers, an immersive, compelling narrative can work, but most just want a treadmill with carrots every quarter mile.

Now, if you're trying to market the game to a mass audience, I completely understand WotC's approach. But if you're going for something more for your own group, sure, nix the huge swaths of magic items.

Of course, 4e does do a fair job of making magic items just be tricks to use, rather than reliable bonuses. I mean, hell, the ring of invisibility is, what, one round a day? High level 4e characters are like Batman with his utility belt; they use whatever they need for a momentary benefit.

I would like to get rid of +x weapons and armor, though. Especially in a game where the math is as precise as 4e, I cannot see any reason other than "sacred cow" to have kept magic item pluses.

How many magical bonuses and effects (particularly plus-based) can be transferred into non-magical skills/feats/abilities learnt? Rather than getting a +1 ring of protection or a +2 cloak of resistance, or a +2 sword, why not have characters earn such bonuses through skill instead? The carrots of magic instead turn into the carrots of levelling/advancing a character's skill set. Leave magic to be special and different.

A magical sword should be "special" because it's magical (be it obviously so or not). How many times have you seen a +2 sword in a group getting handed down to some character who barely has proficiency with it, all because the main fighters in the group have better swords with more plusses. Or they sell it for some coin (several thousand gp doesn't go that far once you hit that level either). Let the mundane quality (be it poor, standard, superior, masterwork or exquisite) handle the plus/bonus side of things. Leave magic to be... magical.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Fine line to walk.

And so it is. Gets back to the flavor/mechanic symbiosis thing. Not always easy to do but at least you should look like you're trying.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

I'd say encourage fewer combat encounters in general, but make them against foes who are honestly dangerous. But provide enough of a death's door safety net so that PCs can lose without automatically dying. If the PCs are all knocked unconscious, the bad guys can kill them or capture them, depending on the game's style.

You've hit upon a very important thing here. In D&D, there is very little variation in terms of losing. You either lose a character or two or have a TPK or you are forced to teleport out if you can - but generally don't if it means leaving a character behind. The idea of conventional escape is almost nonexistent because all the damn monsters are quicker than the PCs. Caltrops are fine but the DM can quickly tire of this trick. Stalemates are non-existent and the thought of mutual withdrawal is simply not there. Conventional escape however is the one I'm thinking of though that needs to be supported by the rules moreso than what it currently is.

Just a quick clarification in terms of getting rid of the safety net that I was talking about. What I mean here is the expectation from the players that the DM is not going to throw something "bad" at them but that encounters will be fair (if sometimes challenging). Is there anything wrong with an encounter thats success is based upon the PCs working out it's too tough and tactically withdrawing? If all combat encounters can be won by charging and bashing effectively, what does this encourage in the players?

What this encourages is almost an autopilot response from the players of "let's roll initiative; let's dust these guys up; let's throw everything at them until they're dead". Players don't look for tactical advantage because generally it's simply not necessary. Optimized builds and powerful powers/abilties/spells will generally win the day, like a blunt stick no matter how clumsily wielded. Having mobility on the skirmishing field of battle is fine, but not if the players aren't going to be thinking in the process. In my opinion 4E > 3E in this respect, even if the tactics are spoonfed through powers - and a little boardgame-like to boot.

I suppose I'd like players to think when it comes to an encounter, rather than assume that bursting into melee will be good enough because it always is.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Again, this works fine for a home game, but is a bad business model.

Now that miniatures have reached a certain saturation, I wonder? Is the expectation of battlemap/miniatures now a hurdle to getting new and young blood into the game. If you could do it with just pen and paper and have it supported by the rules, might this actually get more players involved and then have these players looking at miniatures when they're ready for the investment? I have no idea?

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Good idea. But 'whilst'?

Hey, I'm Australian...

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

The counter argument is that you don't want characters who spread out a lot ending up with more power. The balance should be depth vs. breadth. Multiclassing should be an option, and that's it: neither encouraged nor discouraged.

True.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Some suggest that rules for 'out of combat' actions discourage roleplaying. I disagree, though.

Personally, I'd encourage some level of "personality building" rules, where the player runs through a generalized list of homelands, family situations, past traumas, personal issues, reasons for adventuring, and long-term goals. Each of these could give a small benefit in a non-combat sense.

As well as giving the DM some good direction.

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

Honestly, the economics of adventuring is unsustainable. It is only a valid business venture in some rare niche cases, which require complex historical factors to generate caches of undiscovered treasure that is held in perilous enough locations that only specialists can retrieve it. Even then, discovery of such treasures will invariably result in a "adventuring rush" which will rapidly deplete the ready supplies of such ancient loot.

I'm fine with heroic characters in D&D, folks who go out and do dramatic deeds because they have a specific motivation or goal. But the idea of a 'dungeon economy' is ridiculous.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by RangerWickett

I think those last issues fit together into one thing.

One approach to aid balance and make game design easier (since you don't have a huge staff, and you're not planning to release tons and tons of products in order to make money) would be to reduce the number of levels, or at least narrow the power gap between levels.

Sure, a 10th level character is very capable and can generally kick the butt of a 1st level character, but there's no reason to design rules where the "1st level" part of the game becomes obsolete when the characters are 10th level. If you don't have wildly scaling AC and hit points, then even if high level characters are pulling off deific stunts, you can still throw a bunch of goblins at them and not make the encounter pointless.

Even Gandalf was afraid of the goblins of Moria.

I agree, and I also think I have a possible answer to making the game play like this. It all relates to the core mechanic, the range of DCs possible and the fact that we roll a d20 (which only has 20 levels of variation). Perhaps this deserves a thread of it's own but in short:

- Imagine that a complete novice has a +0 modifier to perform a skilled action
- What they can achieve ranges from a DC of 1 or lower (always successful) to a DC of 20 (the very limit of their capability) to a DC of 21 or above (impossible).
From this, a lot depends on scale but let's follow this through:
- A master (the highest level of ordinary achievement and capability in something) is defined as someone who can consistently do what a novice finds impossible (that would be a bonus of +20 or higher).
- What is the ceiling of achievement, even for a master? If you try to keep things as compressed as possible (having a master at +20), then your ceiling is a DC of 40. Anything over and above this becomes meaningless (at least in terms of what is mortally possible within the game structure).
- Using your 70/30 psychological success preference (rather than the 50/50 I had scribbled down), a master will expect to be successful up to a DC of 27, after that things start becoming difficult/frustrating even for a master.
- Now lets think of all the DCs involved in the game in terms of this scale: armor class, knowledge check DCs, skill check DCs, saving throw DCs and imagine this being standardized across the range.
- Also imagine having modifiers somewhere between +0 and +20 for everything.
I think if you do this, you have a system that can cope with it's own scale, and the fact that a d20 is your random factor (and not a d30 or 3d6 and so on). The d20 naturally restricts your range.
Anyway, as I said, maybe something for another thread.

Anyway Mr RangerWickett, thank you very much for your advocacy of the devil - very much appreciated. Your responses have spawned many ideas in my head.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise